You are here: / / Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights on the Ground of Mental Illness...

Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights on the Ground of Mental Illness Explained

In affirming the termination of petitioner’s parental rights upon the ground of mental illness, the Third Department explained the criteria:

To terminate parental rights upon the ground of mental illness, the petitioning agency must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is — and for the foreseeable future will continue to be — unable to provide proper and adequate care for his or her [child] by reason of that parent’s mental illness. Such a showing, in turn, must include testimony from appropriate medical witnesses particularizing how the parent’s mental illness affects his or her present and future ability to care for the [child]” … . Matter of Kaitlyn X …, 2014 NY Slip Op 08272, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

You might also like
THE CHILD’S STATEMENTS ABOUT SEXUAL TOUCHING WERE ADEQUATELY CORROBORATED AND FATHER’S EXPLANATION FOR THE TOUCHING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
Tour Musicians Were Employees of Columbia Artists Management; Workers Who Loaded and Unloaded Equipment Were Not Employees
Child No Longer Had Sufficient Connection to New York State—Custody-Enforcement Petition Properly Dismissed
FAILURE TO PRODUCE A COPY OF THE MAIL WATCH AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED THAT THE DETERMINATION BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED.
Relationship Between Mother and Father Had Not Deteriorated to the Extent that the Joint Custody Arrangement Should Have Been Modified to Award Sole Custody to Mother
BEFORE PETITIONER INMATE’S ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS CONSIDERED RESPONDENT VOLUNTARILY REVERSED THE GUILTY FINDINGS ON THE PRISON DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS; PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT UNDER THE “CATALYST THEORY” (THIRD DEPT).
Multiplicitous Indictment Counts Dismissed/Warrantless Search of Impounded Vehicle Upheld
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FOOTING FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED; ALTHOUGH THE CITY APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THE POLE IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN ITS REMOVAL; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION AND THE LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE RELIEVED THE CITY OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Type II Actions (Here Replacement of a Wooden Boardwalk With Synthetic Materials)... Because Defendant Was Negligent As a Matter of Law (Violation of Vehicle and...